The spelling is purposeful and has meaning, just not to you.. or most other people for that matter.

Whatever gets you through the night, babe.

Originally Posted by psychalogy

That first post of yours is just a train wreck, really. You start out with a statement that you present as fact but have still made no attempt to support. Itís also becoming apparent that you have NFI about what the American armed forces may or may not do from a psychological perspective with their training. Again you donít bother to back up any of your statements on this issue. You make whatís called an Ďappeal to authorityí without actually knowing what it is that authority says on the issue. And I at least have the knowledge to correctly use the term Ďconditioned responseí when it applies and not make up some pseudo scientific variant which you think sounds cool. Hint: it doesnít. You simply sound like a know nothing wannabe.

I did try being nice to you, but
You remain,
A Tool.

Emphasis mine:

FM 3-25.150, Chapter 1

1-4. SAFETY

The Army's combatives program has been specifically designed to train the most competent fighters in the shortest possible time in the safest possible manner.

a. General Safety Precautions. The techniques of Army combatives should be taught in the order presented in this manual. They are arranged to not only give the natural progression of techniques, but to present the more dangerous techniques after the soldiers have established a familiarity with the dynamics of combative techniques in general. This will result in fewer serious injuries from the more dynamic moves.

b. Supervision. The most important safety consideration is proper supervision. Because of the potentially dangerous nature of the techniques involved, combatives training must always be conducted under the supervision of qualified leaders.

c. Training Areas. Most training should be conducted in an area with soft footing such as a grassy or sandy area. If training mats are available, they should be used. A hard surface area is not appropriate for combatives training. (what, no Lava?)

d. Chokes. Chokes are the best way to end a fight. They are the most effective way to incapacitate an enemy and, with supervision, are also safe enough to apply in training exactly as on the battlefield.

e. Joint Locks. In order to incapacitate an enemy, attacks should be directed against large joints such as the elbow, shoulder, or knee. Attacks on most of these joints are very painful long before causing any injury, which allows full-force training to be conducted without significant risk of injury. The exceptions are wrist attacks and twisting knee attacks. The wrist is very easily damaged, and twisting the knee does not become painful until it is too late. Therefore, these attacks should be taught with great care and should not be allowed in sparring or competitions.

f. Striking. Striking is an inefficient way to incapacitate an enemy. Strikes are, however, an important part of an overall fight strategy and can be very effective in manipulating the opponent into unfavorable positions. Striking can be practiced with various types of protective padding such as boxing gloves. Defense can be practiced using reduced force blows. Training should be continuously focused on the realities of fighting.

If I'm a tool, I'm definitely a screwdriver and you are getting screwed. What I originally said to you was to refute your ridiculous ideas you started out with of which you provided no proof. I didn't appeal to authority, I basically told you you are too fucking lazy to do your own research, but I did it nicely, you pig vomit.

Last edited by Tom Kagan; 5/24/2006 12:28am at .

Calm down, it's only ones and zeros.

"Your calm and professional manner of response is really draining all the fun out of this. Can you reply more like Dr. Fagbot or something? Call me some names, mention some sand in my vagina or something of the sort. You can't expect me to come up with reasonable arguments man!" -- MaverickZ

Again all you did was dress up an argument again . He called you a fuctard, then with an avalanche of words, you said:

Wow, so you forget what you type don't you? Because that is exactly what you have done.

So, the context doesn't really work. You insulted someone by trying to argue about a made up word.

Originally Posted by It is Fake??

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAA....................

Please stay.

I love it, this is beautiful. Sad thing is you can't get you argument correct. I don't know why you are saying "next."

Let me point out why your statement is fallacious. ****+Retard(ed)=Fucktard. So, fucktard is not "clearly a derivative of the word ****." This is a combination of two words, it is called a blend in linguistics.

"For example"
suit+case=suitcase.

Two functioning words blended together to create a new word with, a merged definition.

NEXT

Hmm I’m not really sure which box to put you in. You seem to struggle with basic comprehension but then are able to pick up my grammar, which admittedly does need some work. I was thinking you were talking out of your arse but, well, my grammar does need some fixing. So what to do with you?
Either way thanks for the little linguistics lesson, interesting ,but not something I majored in.

Oh, and whether ‘fucktard ‘ is a derivation or a blend still doesn’t negate the validity of pointing out an incorrect spelling.

See, another contradiction. You seem to know a little about grammar but sweet FA about logic. Actually, maybe that’s not such a contradiction after all.

Ahh bugger it who cares.

Originally Posted by It is Fake??

This is our new MAP related influx. We have at least 8 active threads dealing with unrealistic sparring.

To make it simpler TMA VS Sport. You are trying to dress it up differently but, that is where your posts are leading.

I almost forgot about this one. Kinda got lost in the flood.
In order:
I was here before I found MAP. In fact it was a post in this forum that put me on to the place.

And I don’t give a toss about the TMA vs Sport argument. This thread started when some guy wanted advice on choosing a self-defence style. If you check you’ll see I actually recommended he do something like Krav Maga for a while. Not sport or TMA.

Interesting. Being as this board is mostly comprised of semantic nitpickers disguised as martial artists, including moi, could you please define "in some fashion"?

Oh and I apologize for the 'oh so sophomoric' insult at the end of my last post. Occasionally real life takes away from my imagined greatness.

edit: And one more thing, I wouldn't **** with Tom if I were you.

Yeah I’d noticed that. It seems I fit neatly into that category myself. 
Still, what’s the internet for if not engaging in flame wars with complete strangers from the other side of the globe?

By ‘in some fashion’ I meant: you need to train the body positioning, entry and targeting, at the fastest speed which remains safe. You do actually need to throw the strikes you’re intending to use whether it’s a palm heel to the chin/nose followed by a rake down the eyes/face with your fingers or a knife hand to the side of the neck. It’s not simply a matter of remembering to unbunch that fist you’ve got sailing for the guys head and expecting it to work reliably. And you train these sorts of things as you do everything else, on pads and on opponents. There will be differences between how it’s done compared to your regular strikes but it can still be trained.

Not a perfect explanation but I think I get the point across.

As for fucking with Tom, I’m sure he gets that there’s not generally anything personal to trading insults on a forum. Me? I’m just having fun at this point. Besides, you’d have to be some sort of nutter to take any of this personally and want to take it out of the virtual world. People get hurt for real there with real consequences. It’s lose – lose however things play out. Besides, from reading his profile he has an interesting martial past, once we stop hanging **** on each other here it’d be interesting to chat with him about it.

I was suggesting that when other arts train at anything less than full intensity they are commonly labelled bullshido. Even when their reasons for doing so are the same as those MT uses for not training some techniques full force.

When a martial artist states that his art is too deadly because it relies upon eye poking and groin kicking and barring those targets renders the art useless against other disciplines then I would have to say that is a major weakness in the overall efficacy of the said art. I would not state that an art that relies upon targeting those areas is necessarily Bullshido but it is definately not complete in terms of a self-defense system.

I found it interesting that someone studying what is considered to be among the hardest of hard styles admits to not training 100% intensity with everything they do. Not usually the impression given here.

Individuals who claim they train that way are either impostors or idiots.

Whether it will be a 'foul' shot is another matter.

Hence the quotes.

Just as important as training the actual technique is training your mental mindset with regards to targeting. If all you ever do is train to knee to the thigh or midsection then when you're under real pressure that's what you'll do. You need to be thinking about these foul shots on a regular basis and training the positioning and movement to throw them to have any real hope of being able to do it when your balls are actually on the line.

My club teaches us to be calm under pressure, to keep a clear head and be mindful of what we are capable of, This includes constantly being aware of not accidentally putting our training partners out of commision either temporarily or permanently.

To suggest that we somehow become mindless robots or slaves to our habits and will be rendered incapable of doing what is necessary to incapacitate an attacker when our lives are threatened is to misunderstand the level of automomy and control a highly trained fighter has throughout any given altercation.

...From talking to these people the hit that landed them in emergency was also the one that ended the fight.

Many of these people were also not properly switched on to the possibility of imminent violence. A punch you're ready for doesn't seem to do as much damage as one that comes almost out of the blue.

Most people who end up in emergency wouldn't be considered elite athletes in any sense of the word and are much more likely to caught unaware and suffer much greater damage for several reasons.

I donít think I ever stated that there were many places out there that train with any measure of force or speed with the above mentioned techniques. I did state that you do at least need to train them in some fashion to have a reasonable chance of using them in a confrontation that matters. You canít just rely on having some mental awareness of the existence of these techniques to be able to apply these non-standard attacks on the fly.

And here is where you are wrong. Unless you are using a given technique or skillset (timing, distancing, force, etc) in hard sparring, you will be unable to use it with any reliability in a conflict. Since there are no places that you can determine where dirty tactics are trained by sparring hard, I would posit that there aren't schools that train for them. Is that because everyone who opens a school is training their fighters to be incomplete or is it because time is better spent on **** that works?

As for your point about Ďsports stylistsí having a better grasp on their skill sets due to their regular sparring thereís no question. Absolutely.

OK, good, because you seem to be arguing the other side of the fence just to get a rise out of people.

Again though, the main thrust of my argument has been, more or less, that the skill set of the average Ďsports stylistí is somewhat incomplete from a H2H standpoint.

So somewhat incomplete becomes complete by doing dead practices to gouge out eyes? Seriously, is this the crux of your arguement? Why don't you define a complete H2H fighter since this is one of your definitions...

[SNIP]
As for your 2nd paragraph, I donít think thatís me youíre talking about. Iíve never voiced any opinion on the UFC from any angle, let alone one as specific as whether the rules favour one type of stylist or another. I donít know enough about it given that itís not widely available to view in Australia and I really couldnít be bothered downloading several hundred meg vids to see an entire championship. All Iíve seen of it is highlight reels of particular fights and the odd short knockout clip. I freely admit I know very little about the ruleset that this competition uses, and as such have never commented on it.

I must eat crow on this one, I had my trolls mixed up.

As for what type of sparring I do that depends on where Iím training.
Nothing gets me to the point of wanting to throw up quicker than newaza when Iím at a judo class, stand up randori is less tiring for me. As for the intensity I train that depends on the other person and the wishes of the instructor. As I said, when itís on the ground there have been more than a few occasions where the only thing stopping me from losing my lunch was the desire not to throw up on the mats.

As for striking sparring it never gets beyond medium contact (i.e. enough to double you over if you cop a clean shot to the stomach but not enough to break someoneís noseÖ well at least that hasnít happened yet), and unfortunately doesnít even get there regularly enough. Keep in mind though that if youíre training full speed, full contact and full intensity then youíre no longer sparring youíre fighting.

So thatís me, what about you?

Short version, I currently roll at 50-80% every class. When I trained MT/boxing, we sparred at 30-70% every class with the 70-90% coming while sparring our coach weekly or so.

This is all very strange, for someone who spars with any intensity and aliveness to laud the virtues of dead training to gouge eyes, etc as a method of being a complete fighter. I think your original comparison of dead training to controlled sparring is intellectually dishonest and that you are arguing just for the sake of arguing. In fact you are so far afield of your "points" that you are not arguing them successfully. Instead you are trading insults and getting bogged down in the arguement. I highly recommend providing a clearer version of your arguement and arguing from it instead of "nuh, uhhh, you are." Seriously, your "arguements" are the same ones used by people to avoid hard sparring and facilitate LARPism. For reference, read any MAP thread on sparring.

At this point I really don't think you have a point except "neener neener sports stylists can't help but limit themselves in the streets; you can fix this by pretending to use dirty tactics in class". I think the overall point being argued to you by the rest of the participants is "shut up troll, you don't know what you are talking about; people who spar will be able to fight when it is needed much better than someone who pretends to fight in class." Is that a fair assertion?